Unpopular Opinons

[Icey!]

One day in a far distant future, I would like to not have transgenderism be the primary goal for people with gender dysphoria or act "tomboy" or "tomgirl" and to let people be themselves without having to "reject their bodies" in favor of a new one. I'm not saying that I am against transgender as in some extreme cases it might still be necessary for ones life, but it feels less headache inducing if we just simply tried to eliminate sexism in our societies instead. But until that happens transgenderism is still the best treatment for people who are "different"...

[wygolvillage]

One day in a far distant future, I would like to not have transgenderism be the primary goal for people with gender dysphoria or act "tomboy" or "tomgirl" and to let people be themselves without having to "reject their bodies" in favor of a new one. I'm not saying that I am against transgender as in some extreme cases it might still be necessary for ones life, but it feels less headache inducing if we just simply tried to eliminate sexism in our societies instead. But until that happens transgenderism is still the best treatment for people who are "different"...

I really, really don't agree with this. For one thing, my vision of an ideal world would have varied gender expression be considered pretty normal. Gender is a social construct, and I think having complete control over ones identity and autonomy is always something to strive for, and that includes presenting as whatever gender makes that person happy (and whatever steps they need to take to get that happiness). I think it's precisely because being transgender is treated by society like some kind of mental illness or condition, rather than just another form of expression, that makes you think of it as an "extreme step".

I mean, I'm a cis woman, and I use "it/its" pronouns simply because it makes me happier. I think everyone having a more casual attitude about experimenting with gender presentation would actually help a lot more than it harms (especially because of your concern about sexism, I think sexism would be less of an issue if it was generally accepted that we're all made of the same flesh and the rest is basically social performance!). No one's forcing tomboys to get hormones, it's actually a lot harder to get medical treatments then you would think, there's so much medical gatekeeping.

[larvapuppy]

My unpopular opinion is that it's really annoying when people are loud or talk excessively in public. I wish it was more of a social faux pas in North America like it is in some other cultures. I don't want to hear other people's conversations, yelling, loud laughter, or couples having arguments when I'm on public  transit or shopping in a store. I'm a bit more understanding when this behavior comes from small children, but I still find it irritating and I wish parents would try and teach their kids manners. And of course there are some settings where I'd find it more acceptable, like for celebrations / parties / concerts etc (I don't attend these). Maybe it's because I'm a little bit antisocial and would prefer to pretend other people don't exist for the most part when I'm out, or maybe it's for sensory reasons. Basically I'm no fun and I accept this about myself 

[myleszey]

My unpopular opinion is that it's really annoying when people are loud or talk excessively in public. I wish it was more of a social faux pas in North America like it is in some other cultures. I don't want to hear other people's conversations, yelling, loud laughter, or couples having arguments when I'm on public  transit or shopping in a store.

I think this is a totally acceptable opinion! Folks on the train or the subway having really loud conversations over the phone, or face-timing someone while holding their phone a foot away from the face and shouting into it... of course sometimes it's unavoidable like conversation at a restaurant. There are opportunities to use your 'indoor voice' and it will still get picked up on your phone's microphone!!!

A related anecdote though... Once I was eating at a restaurant with my family and it was getting pretty packed. The volume was pretty high all around, and from the table at the center of the store - where a group of 8 or 10 people were seated - one older gentleman in his 70s (maybe older) stands up and yells at the top of his lungs QUIET!!! and it seemed pretty effective. It was scary!!!

[Icey!]

I really, really don't agree with this. For one thing, my vision of an ideal world would have varied gender expression be considered pretty normal. Gender is a social construct, and I think having complete control over ones identity and autonomy is always something to strive for, and that includes presenting as whatever gender makes that person happy (and whatever steps they need to take to get that happiness). I think it's precisely because being transgender is treated by society like some kind of mental illness or condition, rather than just another form of expression, that makes you think of it as an "extreme step".

I mean, I'm a cis woman, and I use "it/its" pronouns simply because it makes me happier. I think everyone having a more casual attitude about experimenting with gender presentation would actually help a lot more than it harms (especially because of your concern about sexism, I think sexism would be less of an issue if it was generally accepted that we're all made of the same flesh and the rest is basically social performance!). No one's forcing tomboys to get hormones, it's actually a lot harder to get medical treatments then you would think, there's so much medical gatekeeping.

well, I mean on the plus side this actually was an "unpopular opinion" right? I very much get where you are coming from in your counterargument, I just think there is a deeper solution to be found if we didn't associate gender with anything and let everyone roam free without labeling them as "boy" or "girl" like society usually does, but I could be wrong about this. This was a extremely brave take on my end and I would expect more people to disagree down the line, there is still nothing wrong with transitioning and you are aloud to do that as you please.

I am also saying this because having to correctly identify people's genders in real life is already a tedious chore, and transgenderism complicates things. While that might not be a good example, I would puffer if I didn't have to do that at all. Again, I'm not a transphobe but I just wished we had better gender neutral pronouns so I didn't have to assume anyone's gender. "Gender-less societies" should be considered, as this means that everyone is treated more equally and no one's preferences are being assumed on their (former) gender. You won't have regrets for transitioning when you realize that it's not for you because gender doesn't exist, and when gender doesn't exist, sexism doesn't exist.

[j]

hi, non binary trans woman here hoping to clear some misconceptions up!

transgenderism ...

... is a term that's sometimes used by TERFs, "gender criticals" and transmedicalists that a lot of trans folks aren't the biggest fan of - FYI! the "trans experience" and "being trans" is a more approachable way to talk about things without the negative connotations. these terms change diachronically - like all things - in the same way that some trans folks still identify as transsexuals instead of being transgender. i'm saying all this because it's good to be in the know and respect the wishes of whoever you're talking to.

... primary goal for people with gender dysphoria ...

gender euphoria is a thing too! popular media sources push a(n often misrepresentative) narrative that all trans people know from a very young age that they were "born in the wrong bodies" and feel the need to undergo gender affirming care to feel better about themselves. this isn't true of everyone.

for me, gender euphoria was the key to discovering that i was trans. i was crossdressing at home for many years before i identified as trans (unfortunately i was a little transphobic because of how i was raised); only when i started publicly presenting femininely did i realized that i felt happier, and subsequently came to learn that the depression i had been struggling with for many years was inexorably tied to my gender identity, amongst other things. if it weren't for the patience of a few trans friends and my partner, i would probably be in a far worse state than i am now, yet i would never have connected my mental health with being transgender.

... it feels less headache inducing if we just simply tried to eliminate sexism in our societies instead ...

i understand where you're coming from, but this is - in my opinion - an inexperienced viewpoint.

the issue is manifold:

- sexism, racism, classism all innately exist within animals as a whole. the initial assumptions we make about people based on superficial qualities like appearance is called "thin slicing" in sociology, and is a survival mechanism in the same way that pack animals exile the sick and discard the wounded for the sake of the majority. i've only ever experienced transphobia when a transphobe is with people they know (this isn't a rule!), which leads me onto the second point.
- "we" and "us, as a society" do not represent everyone ever. as an anarchist: i believe there is no way to eliminate the social issues that plague our species because our species is simply too big to govern in its current configuration. thieves still steal despite thievery being outlawed; often they get away with it because some areas are more important than others because of their wealth or the people that live there. what you ask may be possible in smaller parishes where mutual aid and neighborhood watches are present, but never in a strawman "society", ever. even then: the anarchistic belief that everyone in a parish would have good intentions is flawed, too.
- beliefs about gender vary as much within the minds of cis folks as they do in the minds of trans folks. a cis woman threatened to assault me the other day because i was wearing a skirt whilst i had a beard, which highlights that her thoughts about AMAB individuals deviate from the stereotype folks like my father used to preach; he thought that women were physically weaker than men whilst this woman clearly did not.

... plus a bunch of other factors that are more important to other people than to myself, too!

... people who are "different" ...

we're very much /not/ different. we're as normal as cis people are - whatever "normal" actually means. however, we don't fall within the modern Western beliefs of gender identity, which aren't even that old. i urge you to search the following keywords: "hijra india 2014"; "Institut für Sexualwissenschaft" (this one's a big reason as to why we seem "different" now!!!!!), "two-spirited gender identity", "ancient mesopotamia third gender", "muxes" in relation to "Zapotec Oaxaca's isthumus religion".

a /huge/ problem (that i've written an essay on) is that the media you consume is biased, and paints trans folks in a certain light. trans folks have existed for as long as gender has been thought of. you just don't get taught trans history, nor where to find it.

... being transgender is treated by society like some kind of mental illness or condition, rather than just another form of expression, that makes you think of it as an "extreme step" ...

as @wygolvillage has implied here: whenever being trans is brought up, people immediately think that medically transitioning is the end-goal of trans folks. transmedicalists believe that being trans is a medical disorder that needs to be cured, and a large percentage of the trans community (tucutes) disagree (there's a lot of academic literature surrounding this discussion). some trans folks socially transition. some trans folks medically transition. some seek any combination of the two. at the end of the day it's an individual's choice as to whether they take action, because transitioning is a choice. similarly, of those that do detransition, a large number decide it's best because of external social pressure from those around them, which is worth mentioning here.

... well, I mean on the plus side this actually was an "unpopular opinion" right? ...

ironically, i find that most - if not all - unpopular opinions are from people that haven't looked into something to fully understand it yet, which is why i'm trying to provide a pretty detailed perspective!

having to correctly identify people's genders in real life is already a tedious chore ... I just wished we had better gender neutral pronouns so I didn't have to assume anyone's gender ... when gender doesn't exist, sexism doesn't exist.

again, i understand where you're coming from. i even shared the same beliefs years ago, before i realized i was trans. i can't speak for you, but when /i/ said things like this, i was blaming gender for being complicated to interpret when in reality i just struggled - and still do struggle - with interacting with others. my beliefs stemmed from how badly i felt when i got things wrong with gender and my need to then blame something, so i blamed what i thought was the root cause.

i've felt a lot happier since i learnt to accept that i will make mistakes in every domain of life, and that they mean only the energy i expend on them. i still get intrusive thoughts to deadname my partner, and my partner rarely uses the wrong pronouns when talking about me. sometimes i misgender somebody who is like a sibling to me by using a gendered form of "sibling". sometimes i even misgender myself!

there is no one rule to fit all. some people prefer you ask their pronouns before talking to them, whilst some people find it wildly insulting to get they/them'd when they're presenting in a hypergendered way. this made little sense to me before (surely you should ask people's pronouns always as an unwritten rule?). for me, it was just a case of accepting that mistakes happen at the fault of no-one and nothing (including gender as a whole!) and that the most important thing in such situations was that i constantly put in the effort to be respectful and remedy any disputes that might arise.


discussion about this is important, and it's my belief that you should always approach discourse with the best intentions, even if another party doesn't share the same goodwill you bring.

one thing i'll add is that i am but one trans person living their life. some folks will disagree with what i've said, though not just because they have different ideas of gender. you suggested a "genderless society" as the ultimate utopia to issues regarding being trans. maybe one day this will be achieved, but things will never be perfect for trans people, as things will never be perfect for people of color or classes or castes. the one constant in life is that things change. i'm hopeful that trans rights will progress, but i'm certain that they'll regress in the future too, in a constant cycle.

[Icey!]

@j Yea I set myself up for quite a reality hit , but even then I still think we should minimize our reliance on gender in society. I've always had a mixed opinion about transgender, and it's increasingly becoming difficult to identify people correctly which made me jump to that conclusion. I wished I could wind back the clock and force the creators of the English language to not make pronouns co-respond to gender but time machines don't exist. I am genuinely trying to say this for the good as I am aware why someone would feel that they would need to transition. Transgender feels like a "social bandaid" to a massive problem, a problem that may never be resolved, the closest we got is gender-neutral bathrooms which I doubt helped much.

The only thing I will clear up is me calling trans people "different", what I meant was that trans people feel different from their "born" identity, not that they were different entirely. I also apologize for dubbing it "transgenderism" not knowing it was used for malicious intent by transphobes.

As for the "gender-less utopia" I imagined, this was based on a imaginary world where gender identity didn't exist, all systems didn't include a mention of any gender, and dress styles were not associated with gender meaning that "tomboy look a likes" and "tomgirl look a likes" would a lot more common in person. This was based on the assumption that males and females are extremely similar if not identical which isn't true unfortunately. But this is an "ideal" I hope we can strive towards but it doesn't have to be exact.
 
Hey uh @Melooon can you move this discussion to a separate topic please? This is a lot more complicated than I anticipated.

[dotmidi]

I mean, I'm a cis woman, and I use "it/its" pronouns simply because it makes me happier. I think everyone having a more casual attitude about experimenting with gender presentation would actually help a lot more than it harms

  I agree with this, I have a lot of friends in real life who don't really adhere to norms of gender and I am a bit frustrated people think it's such an issue when it's really such a casual thing. ALSO a fellow It/Its user too hello !
I think, if pronouns and transitioning were to be seen as less political or the root of discourse online, the queer world would heal.. Some people just want to have a flat chest and it doesnt have to do with sexism!    like how I want to be on testosterone so I have a nice deep voice 

[larvapuppy]

Decided to drop another spicy unpopular opinion in the thread... I think tone tags are more exclusionary than inclusionary. It's a whole ever-growing list of abbreviations that you have to learn in order to figure out the person's intended tone, rather than just looking for indicators within the language they use or - incredibly novel idea- just asking them what tone they are trying to convey! A lot of systems like this seem like they're trying to make communication easy but really make it more clunky and annoying for those who aren't in the "in" group. Plus, communication is never 100% straightforward. Putting in a little effort to get to know and understand the people you are talking to isn't a bad thing. The internet levels the playing field somewhat as well - whereas in real life some people are able to decipher body language and tone of voice to understand the intentions of their conversation partners, that advantage doesn't exist in text-based internet discussions. If a tone indicator is necessary, why not just type a sentence to clarify?

[shevek]

Decided to drop another spicy unpopular opinion in the thread... I think tone tags are more exclusionary than inclusionary. It's a whole ever-growing list of abbreviations that you have to learn in order to figure out the person's intended tone, rather than just looking for indicators within the language they use or - incredibly novel idea- just asking them what tone they are trying to convey! A lot of systems like this seem like they're trying to make communication easy but really make it more clunky and annoying for those who aren't in the "in" group. Plus, communication is never 100% straightforward. Putting in a little effort to get to know and understand the people you are talking to isn't a bad thing. The internet levels the playing field somewhat as well - whereas in real life some people are able to decipher body language and tone of voice to understand the intentions of their conversation partners, that advantage doesn't exist in text-based internet discussions. If a tone indicator is necessary, why not just type a sentence to clarify?

I agree. I think it was probably born out of the Twitter character restriction. I mean, we've had abbreviations online forever because chatting had to go fast, but I think Twitter really accelerated the development of short slang and abbreviations. Tone tags specifically seem like the "ideal" solution for trying to communicate deep topics and have more meaningful interactions within 145 characters. In my opinion, Twitter was never a good platform for that (see: mile long tweet threads and the bots developed to put it all in one document for easier read), but people forced it or made do with it at least. Explanations would take away from the space made for the main point, so having 3-4 letters dedicated to meaning made sense. But I would appreciate if tone tags were replaced by explanations too, in spaces where there is no small character count restriction.

One other opinion that might be unpopular (or is at least probably nothing people think much about or position themselves on) but I am bothered by how easily extreme or sensationalizing language is used by people, news outlets and all.
For example, instead of saying that there is a conflict or differing interests between two parties, it is said that there is a "war" (example: "War brews between cafés, remote workers as people use shops as offices"). Instead of saying that something is harmful or hurtful (like sound that is hurtful to the ear) it is casually titled "rape" (like "ear rape"). When something is satisfying or nice, it is immediately labeled "porn" (like so many subreddits dedicated to satisfying images of something, like "earthporn" for nice landscapes). The words themselves aren't bad, but often I read this stuff and think, wow, just chill? and some use is a bit disrespectful; I think with all the wars going on right now, it is ridiculous to label differences between remote workers and cafés, or a fight between celebrities, a war; or anything uncomfortable a rape.

[j]

i wrote an essay on this ageeeees ago. tone tags were originally born out of XML tags, so an indicator like "/j" was shortened from "/joking", which was in turn shortened from "</joking>". there have been folks attempting to indicate tone through written mediums for centuries; i think the earliest was the percontation point (a subset of irony punctuation) sometime in the 1500s? as @shevek's said: things have been shortened probably because of the mediums we've used since mass digital communication became a thing. Twitter might be the cause, but things like IRC, SMS and pagers have influenced our written form for almost half a century now (see 1337sp33k to bypass moderation & WT IT WOZ LK B4 SMS, before you had to pay per character). mediums may well influence and accelerate language change, but even then, i don't think you can really put the blame on one thing: we're always mucking about with our language :P </lighthearted>

i'm not sure how i feel about tone tags. i used to use them a lot when i frequented places like IRC - but i've moved to the opposite end of the room - away from instant messaging and towards plain old messaging - where i rarely have to use tone indicators in favor of playing with other aspects of my writing. that being said: i still find them useful from time to time (like the previous paragraph: that wasn't just me showing off!). i've noticed that the primary argument for tone tags is that neurodivergent folks benefit from using them, which /feels/ like a stereotype drawn from some folks needing tone tags none-to-some-to-all of the time (the autistic people like me could /never/ discern sarcasm online so everyone's got to tag everything they say in a totally-not-condescending way!), but the good intentions behind this argument never seem to be extended to folks where english isn't their first language, or folks that are older and (in my experience) less inclined to learn slang.

at the end of the day, i think the appropriation of language features happens between groups either way; and different groups expect different things. some folks like that and some don't; some folks use malleable language constructs and some don't. the main chat room of libera.chat (IRC), for instance, forbids the use of SMS-style abbreviations like "btw" and "imo" ("u" and "ur" get quite vocal responses when they're used!). yet other chatrooms on IRC networks like tilde.chat are fine w whatevs. when in Rome - even if you disagree. i guess it's probably the same reason that i'm able to type like i am now, because we're on Melonland where expression is encouraged. to me, all of this is identical to face-to-face (f2f) communication, where you change your register to match whichever group you're currently in (i'd definitely not use my customer service language if i'm at a bar with my friends). people are different, so some folks will lean towards things more than others!

who knows?

[wygolvillage]

I agree, also not too into tone tags (I am autistic). I'm pretty bad at remembering abbreviations and rather than indicating tone it just makes me read the whole message in a condescending baby voice lol? So I guess it does indicate a tone just not the one intended 

But!!! I also realized that I use something similar... Like, if I say "this horror film is the most 70s movie I've ever seen, it's so campy and silly (meant positively)" that is itself a tone indicator, and I don't really read fully written out ones in the same way as I read condescension into the abbreviated ones. Maybe because its not a large "system" people are trying to use/standardize???

[larvapuppy]

i've noticed that the primary argument for tone tags is that neurodivergent folks benefit from using them, which /feels/ like a stereotype drawn from some folks needing tone tags none-to-some-to-all of the time (the autistic people like me could /never/ discern sarcasm online so everyone's got to tag everything they say in a totally-not-condescending way!)

I was having trouble expressing this in my original post, but yeah, this 100%. There's a stereotype that autistic people don't understand sarcasm and never understand tone- when in my experience autistic people really have a very deep, layered way of communicating, and use humor and sarcasm that is even less obvious than basic sarcasm.  It bothers me and is probably part of why tone tags irritate me.

On the other hand, I remember back when we used the longer tone tags like "</joking>". Since they were full words it was actually possible to know what the person was saying without having to look it up. Nowadays we have ones like /hj, /gen, etc that can be interpreted in more than one way. And I'm sure their interpretation differs by community as well. So in the end they're just kind of pointless.

[myleszey]

On the other hand, I remember back when we used the longer tone tags like "</joking>". Since they were full words it was actually possible to know what the person was saying without having to look it up. Nowadays we have ones like /hj, /gen, etc that can be interpreted in more than one way. And I'm sure their interpretation differs by community as well. So in the end they're just kind of pointless.

Before I was really in a community that used a lot of tone-tags I stumbled upon a post from someone who had made a kind of "guide" to understanding all of these but had changed all of the definitions to be rude/sexual phrases, and now I can't see them as anything else. I suppose that someone could have the same experience if they were new to abbreviations like "mb, nvm, btw, wtf..." and someone told them that BTW stood for Being The Worst.

People can also use tone indicators as a joke, which muddles the mixture even further. Their use has to be in moderation and when appropriate to be effective!

[Snow]

Unpopular opinion: I don't think Johnny Test is anywhere near as bad as a lot of people make it out to be. Sure it's certainly not a great show and it's lacking in a lot of things that make a cartoon good, but I find it at least watchable. The first season is kinda decent, but after that the show sees a drastic decline in quality.

But still I wouldn't say it's the worst show ever made or anything. There's far worse out there. I'm looking at you, Fleabag Monkeyface.

I haven't seen the Johnny Test reboot yet. I probably should out of curiosity.